A promdi and jologs at heart, Hector Bryant L. Macale works for the Manila-based media NGO Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) as senior staffwriter. He is now the managing editor of the Philippine Journalism Review Reports (PJR Reports), CMFR's flagship media-monitoring publication. All his posts are solely his rants, raves, and musings, unless stated otherwise.

MEDIA groups filed this morning (March 21) an urgent motion asking the Court of Appeals to immediately set a hearing on a petition they filed against executive officials whom they said were engaging in an assault on the press.

In that petition, the complainants asked the court to prohibit the respondents from “imposing any form of content-based prior restraint on the press, be it formal or informal, direct or in the form of disguised or thinly veiled threats of administrative sanction or criminal prosecution.” The petition stressed that “only a court, with its accompanying due process safeguards, may impose content-based prior restraints, when the grounds therefor are duly proved.”

The petitioners asked the court to immediately issue a “certiorari and prohibition with application of a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction” against the respondents.

Echoing arguments they made in that petition, the complainants, in their urgent motion, today told the court that “the attacks (against the press) are becoming more and more virulent, and more ominous.”

Thirty-seven more groups and individuals have joined the petition, bringing to 83 the total number of signatories. The petitioners include journalists from various regions of the country.

In their urgent motion, the petitioners referred to incidents which they said continued to provide “direct and thinly veiled threats against the press.” These include, they said, the suspension of an award-winning radio program by the station that aired it for four years, and the subsequent testimony of a government witness that the program’s producer was fronting for the communist party; and the attempts by the Quezon City police to secure a warrant to search the premises of the PCIJ.

There were also, the petitioners said, repeated statements by the respondents and other executive officials about journalists being “monitored,” as well as warnings that the media will not be accorded any “special treatment” should they fail to police their ranks against those who will use them for their own gain. The petitioners also noted that a newspaper whose office and printing press were raided, following the declaration of a state of national emergency, continue to be monitored even after the pull-out of police personnel from its premises.

“The foregoing acts,” said the petitioners, “coming within days of each other and without let-up, show a deliberate pattern by the government to muzzle the press and gag protected speech.”

Saying that the respondents “have deliberately thickened the air with uncertainty, insecurity, apprehension and even fear,” the complainants asked the court to stop “these acts … of prior restraint.”

They asked the court to immeditely set a hearing “at the soonest possible time,” and then issue a TRO and preliminary injunction “on such terms as (the court) may deem just.”

The Inquirer this afternoon reported that the CA’s 15th Division has said it will defer any ruling on the petition until the petitioners have submitted a required certification lacking in their plea.

The petitioners’ counsels, of the Free Legal Assistance Group or FLAG, said they have not received any such resolution and that they hope the CA will look at the petition’s substance, rather than its form. “We fervently hope that the court will hear us,” lawyer Jose Manuel Diokno said.The petitioners include:

Maria Ressa, head of News and Current Affairs of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Network; Jessica Soho, Vice President for News and News Director of GMA-7; Ed Lingao, Vice President for Operations of ABC-5; Arnold Clavio of GMA-7 and dzBB; Pia Hontiveros of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Network and ABS-CBN News Channel (ANC); Ricky Carandang of ANC; Marites Vitug of Newsbreak; and Sheila Coronel of PCIJ.

Read the urgent motion here and the March 8 petition here. View list of petitioners.

Sorry if this entry is nowhere near the seriousness of my previous posts. But I felt that my blog needs a bit of rest even for just one or two posts. Second, I did some entries about these bands, so this is just like continuing my previous entries about bands and music in general (For example, see this old post of mine where I dissed Orange and Lemons as an old plain copycat). I'll get back to the most pressing issues soon, I promise.

Here's an article from Manila Bulletin quoting Myke Sarthou, the manager of prominent pop-alternative band Cueshe, dissing another popular band, Hale (which by the way, was described by Wikipedia as a "pop band".

Haha. Let the war begin. Which pogi rock band stands after the dust has settled? Well, from the way I interpret it, it was Sarthou who drew the first blood. Unless there's a deeper story between Hale and Cueshe that we still don't know. Abangan.

Cueshe manager slams HaleBy Jojo P. Panaligan

"Members of Hale are two-faced and arrogant backbiters who think too highly of themselves and their music."

Thus, says Cueshe manager, Myke Sarthou, in lieu of Hale’s alleged ‘stab’ at the controversy the former band was embroiled in last year during the latter’s performance in the ABS-CBN show, "Magandang Umaga Pilipinas" last March 2. (The photo at left is the band Cueshe -- Bryanton Post)

Invited to "Magandang Umaga" to promote the repackaged version of their debut album, Hale performed their hit songs but intro-ed with a snippet of Silverchair’s "The Greatest View" which was publicly contended as one from which Cueshe derived the melody of their hit single, "Stay."

"Why did they perform ‘Greatest View’ if they have no intention of reminding people of that issue; one that already died down naturally for lack of basis? There’s no remake of ‘Greatest View’ in their album nor is that song part of their usual repertoire. It was covert attempt to taunt Cueshe. Pambabastos na pailalim," says Myke.

Cueshe apparently felt irked over the incident that, days later, they addressed the perceived affront in one of show segments in music channel, "MYX."

"Sabi ng Cueshe sa ‘MYX,’ ‘If you (referring to Hale) don’t like us, don’t say ‘Hi!’ to us when we see each other. Wag n’yo na kaming plastikin," recalls Myke.

According to Myke, Hale has not only been "backbiting" Cueshe even before, but has been "making the public believe that they’re really this important and sought-after band."

(Hale band, left photo -- Bryanton Post) "Paano silang magiging sought-after when according to their own website, they only have seven to eight gigs per month? At least ang Cueshe, araw-araw may show that pays well. Hale is managed by their record label and if one is going to use common sense, then they are probably mostly booked for shows that just sell the album. Then again, common sense is not so common," says Myke.

As for Hale acting precious about their music, Myke says that this is evidenced by the quartet’s perennial call to not be labeled as ‘pogi rock’ and for people to instead appreciate their music or musicality.

He adds: "Cueshe would never point out the merits of their songs because that’s something real artists don’t do unless they come across as self-serving. Only the public can bestow genuine compliments. Besides, what’s the point of crowing about the technical merits of music? Either people like you or they don’t for whatever reason."

When asked about Hale touted as the best selling new artist of 2005, Myke says that Hale has had the advantage of releasing their album months ahead of Cueshe’s.

"Sila, month of May nag-release ng album. Kami, July. Further, they were already promoting their album even before its release by serving ‘Broken Sonnet’ to both radio and music channels. What can I say about their Triple Platinum Award? Congratulations," says Myke.

Cueshe’s manager also says that Hale is so insecure of Cueshe that the former was said to have even contemplated "patterning" the concept of the video for their latest song "Tollgate" to that of Cueshe’s current, "Can’t Let You Go."

"The concept of the video for ‘Can’t Let You Go’ features footages from shows they’ve done all over. Naturally, the video has shots of their fans. When Hale saw it, they were said to have spoken to their label to produce another video for ‘Tollgate’ that will also show their fans."

What if that materialized?

"That would’ve been really amusing because it would once again show how desperate Hale truly is," ends Myke.

Cueshe’s Double Platinum debut album, "Half Full, Half Empty" has produced the hit songs "Stay," "Ulan," Sorry" and "Can’t Let You Go." The band will be doing a back-to-back show with Hale today at the Baseball Field Subic Bay, Olongapo City.

Hale and its record label EMI Music Philippines declined to release an official statement as of this writing.

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

For more information: look for Nathan of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (tel. no. 02 840-0903) or Ayi of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (09104950087; NUJP office- 02 411-7768)

In a continuing effort to guard the people's right to information, media organizations and individual journalists are set to file today (March 21) an urgent motion for the Court of Appeals to act immediately on a petition filed last week to prevent the Arroyo Administration from "imposing any form of content-based prior restraint on the press."

Following the filing of the Urgent Motion at the Court of Appeals, lawyers from the Free Legal Assistance Group together with media groups and individual journalists will hold a press conference.

To see a copy of the petition, click here. The executive summary of the petition can be accessed here. For a short primer on the petition, click here. If you want a story made by CMFR on the government clapmpdown on the press, click here.

Saturday, March 18, 2006

That sums up the article I and Nathan J. Lee wrote for the March issue of the Philippine Journalism ReviewReports (PJR Reports) regarding the continued government clampdown on the press despite the lifting of Presidential Proclamation 1017. Check out the PDF copy of our article, which was the issue's main story.

As one of the two sidebars to the main story, I also wrote a bit about some of the provisions contained in the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines which can be used to "stifle the press and force it to toe the Palace line." Among such provisions cites the crime of inciting to sedition.

The sidebar also discussed some of the findings of the baseline study jointly made by The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (publisher of PJR Reports) and Article 19 (a free expression group based in London) on the state of press freedom in the Philippines (Actually, aside from the Philippines study, Article 19 also has studies looking at the state of press freedom in various countries in Southeast Asia.)

The baseline study stated: "An expression or news can only be categorized as 'endangering the public order' if it passes a three-part test," which falls under an international set of principles on the right to freedom of expression and national security recommened to UN states like the Philippines for consideration.

"Given this three-part test," I wrote, "can the government prove that Daily Tribune editor-publisher Ninez Cacho Olivares and two of her paper's columnists should be charged with 'incitiing to sedition'?"

Click here for the sidebar. The other sidebar was an executive summary of the petition media organizations and jounalists filed on March 8 asserting media's freedom against prior restraint.

The said March issue of the PJR Reports also carries a well-writting and scathing commentary by Vergel O. Santos on 1017 and stories about the cancellation of the Diyos at Bayan at QTV-11 written by Booma B. Cruz and the Ultra tragedy.

Some of the stories in the issue are not uploaded in the CMFR/PJR Reports pages (like the stories on the Marine standoff and the Inquirer Compact) and some of the photos in the PDF copies are a bit pixelized. Plus, the digital copy of PJR Reports does not carry the other sections of the magazine, such as the "Speaking of Media" and "Crisis" Local and International.

More importantly, the digitized copy does not have the "Monitor" section, considered as the "heart" of the magazine. In this section, we note the press coverage on various issues, hoping to raise a discussion of how the press conducts itself on issues and hopefully, improve its coverage. Reports were either given a kaimito (star apple) mark -- meaning the report did its job well -- or a kalabasa (squash) mark -- the report was not good enough and should have been improved. There are some reports that get both kaimito and kalabasa marks.

Here's a monitor summing up the 1017 coverage:

(Kaimito) Cheers for the press for covering non-stop all developments related to Presidential Proclamation no. 1017.

TV stations aired special reports on the issue, with news and public affairs programs focusing on the various aspects of the infamous proclamation. Websites and blogs kept up with mainstream media by recording the latest developments on the issue.

Below is a monitor on how the press reported on the Muslim cartoons controversy:

(Kalabasa) 24 Oras reported on a Feb. 15 rally of a group of Muslims in front of the Danish embassy in Makati without explaining what the controversy was about. The television news program did not even say that the Makati rally was just one of the many protest actions over the controversial cartoons worldwide.

For more details on how to get PJR Reports, please call (63 2) 894-1326/894-1314/840-0889 (telefax) or email us at staff@cmfr-phil.org. Our website is http://www.cmfr-phil.org

"Hello Bryant. Thank you for writing about our experience last night. Both Enteng and Dinky were released upon their own recognizance past midnight but it was ruled that the case has to go through further investigation. We maintain that we were merely hoping to stroll the Baywalk. We had no placards, we did not chant. In fact, we never got to the street."

She also offered apologies to those wondering what happened to their blog, which was inaccessible yesterday. Was their blog hacked? Hmmm. Does this mean that this site can easily be hacked too? Anyway, check out these other sites (here and here) of the group to get an update of their activities.

The picture above showing Dinky negotiating with the arresting cops was taken from one of the group's blog.

Former social welfare secretary Corazon "Dinky" Soliman and Black and White Movement convener Vicente "Enteng" Romano III were arrested by police while about to hold a "flash mob" protest at the Baywalk area of downtown Manila.

Leah Navarro, a member of the Black and White Movement, said that Romano and Soliman were about to cross the street near Malate Church when police arrested them late Friday.

Romano is behind the Black Friday Protest, a series of snap demonstrations.

Soliman was among 10 top government officials who quit Arroyo's government last year and subsequently called for the president's ouster over allegations she cheated in the May 2004 polls.

Navarro told INQ7.net that there were less than 30 people who were set to hold the flash protest at Baywalk, a strip of open cafes along Roxas Boulevard fronting Manila Bay.

Here comes a text message from Sir Vergel Santos, who might be with the Black and White Movement at the Baywalk tonight or getting the latest updates on Dinky Soliman's arrest:

"Black and White Movement thumbs-down campaign at Malate baywalk stopped by police. Over 100 policemen blocked the group led by Dinky not numbering more than 20! Dinky first detained at police outpost along Roxas Boulevard outside Aristocrat Malate. Then taken by mobile somewhere."

“Sure, every journalist must live and work each day with the risk of drawing a case for libel or invasion of privacy, or contempt. All trained journalists spend some time learning the distinction between libelous and libel-proof writing.

“But sedition and other serious political crimes is something else. When the State through its various instrumentalities – the Palace, the NTC, the AFP or the PNP – uses its powers to threaten with sanctions media practitioners, or when the PNP raids a newspaper at dawn and then claims there was no takeover; or when broadcast stations are repeatedly reminded about ‘guidelines,’ that is dancing on the perilous edge between freedom and censorship. The net effect cannot be but to curb freedom of the press and stifle all the other values that democracy draws from it.” - BusinessMirror editorial, March 17-18, 2006, p. A10

Details are still sketchy, but "Hyatt 10" member and former social welfare secretary Dinky Soliman and Black and White Movement convenor Vicente Enteng Romano, were arrested just a few minutes ago while they were leading an anti-Arroyo walk at the Baywalk Area in Roxas Boulevard.

According to the policemen reportedly led by a certain Col. Pedroso, Soliman's group was arrested for violating Batasang Pambansa (BP) 880, the law that prohibits illegal assembly without permit. BP 880 was issued during the Marcos dictatorship.

Soliman's group told the arresting police that they were merely walking in the area and were not disturbing anyone with their activity. Soliman even insisted that while they were wearing anti-Arroyo shirts, they weren't shouting calls for Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to resign. They didn't even have anti-Arroyo placards with them. Still, policemen brought Soliman and Romano (I'm still not sure if there are others from the group) to a police station in Manila.

While, we are waiting for more details about the arrest, this is what the Black and White Movement was planning to do tonight. The group holds an activity every Friday (called "Black Flash Friday Protests") to show their sentiments against the president. The first Black Flash Friday Protest was held last March 3 at Starbucks Cafe, in Makati.

1) Wear BLACK. BRING ALSO HAT, SHADES, AND IMPROVISED HOOD similar to the hooded witness of DOJ (see attached photo).2) Assemble in front of the Aristocrat Restaurant, Roxas Blvd. between 6:15 to 6:30pm3) Wait awhile for other groups in black. Take a snack, if you wish, while waiting for others to arrive4) At 6:30pm, cross Roxas Boulevard in single file towards Baywalk.5) Put on your "Makapili" hooded outfit and mingle with the regular Friday strollers on Baywalk.6) When the signal is given, line up single file along the road and face the street.7) Do the "thumbs down" sign to passing vehicles.8) On cue, disperse quietly.

Suggested preparations:

9) Invite as many friends or officemates as possible.10) If you're an employer or a manager, invite all your subordinates to join you. Offer to "treat" them after the flash protest, if you can afford it. Hey, it's Friday after pay day. So you can have your regular "gimmick" after this.11) If you're from the same office, arrange for carpooling going to the Aristocrat restaurant.12) If you're outside of Metro Manila, and there are enough of you to organize a protest action, just select your own area of protest, but follow the "MAKAPILI" theme.

Thursday, March 16, 2006

That is the main title of the story I and colleague Nathan J. Lee wrote for the upcoming March issue of the Philippine Journalism Review Reports (PJR Reports). Actually, the article's full title is: "After PP 1017, journalists take battle to court: 'No' to the Dark Days." The story (which is the issue's main article) focuses on the continued clampdown on the press despite the lifting of Presidential Proclamation no. 1017 by Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The story begins with the filing of a petition by various media organizations and journalists last March 8 "asserting media's constitutionally protected rights against any government censorship or prior restraint."

"Presidential Proclamation 1017 may have already been lifted, but the battle for press freedom continues," we wrote.

The March issue of the PJR Reports will come out next week.

Meanwhile, here's a statement from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism reacting to the statements made by Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez saying that the government is monitoring the PCIJ because, according to Gonzalez, it has been posting "in their website many things I consider as inciting to sedition.”PCIJ Statement

“For example,” he added, “ the fact that it kept on posting the matters in the Garci tape is violative of [Republic Act] 4200 (the anti-wiretapping law).”

This charge is ridiculous. In June 2005, the PCIJ posted the three-hour audio recording of the alleged phone conversations of former elections commissioner Virgilio Garcillano. Our intent was to inform the public of the contents of those conversations so that they can make an independent judgment on the allegations of election fraud. The recording was clearly a matter of public interest, and it was this interest that we were upholding.

How can we be accused of inciting to sedition and of violating the anti-wiretapping law by posting the audio files of a tape that has been played in Congress? Radio and television stations have played portions of the tape as well. Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye even played and presented to the media a different version of the supposedly wiretapped recording. Moreover, that recording is posted in about a dozen other websites and blogs.

Yet the Justice Secretary has prejudged our case and made a conclusion without giving the PCIJ the benefit of due process. How can a Justice Secretary do that?

As far as we know, the Bill of Rights and the Rules of Court are still in place. We are presumed innocent until proven guilty. We cannot be pronounced guilty on his mere say so.

I would like to ask the Justice Secretary: When the PCIJ published its exposés on the unexplained wealth and mansions of former President Joseph Estrada in 2001, were we also inciting to sedition? Our reports were used in the impeachment charge against Estrada. Were we inciting to sedition then? If some people went to Edsa after reading our reports, was that inciting to sedition?

If it is, then any legitimate piece of investigative journalism is seditious. Then anything that comes out in the media today can be construed to be seditious.

Secretary Gonzalez intends to intimidate the PCIJ. That is not his job. The job of the justice system is to provide an enabling environment that allows free and responsible journalism to be practiced. It is to protect journalists like ourselves from harassment suits and ridiculous charges. Instead he has become the purveyor of these charges. We are so very disappointed.

The feisty magazine, which is in the news these days for its stories on election fraud in 2004 and rumored as a possible target of police raid, has veteran journalist Marites Dañguilan Vitug as editor. Marites was recently named as one of 50 individuals in "2006 Global Leadership 50" by the leading political risk consultancy firm Eurasia Group, the only Filipino in the list.

At a time of popular unrest, the Arroyo Administration has found it fit to go against its democratic grain by encroaching upon the time-honoured sanctity of the free Press for which the Philippines has long been lauded in Asia.

The police raids on a newspaper office and a printing press for alleged unexplained offences; and warnings to the media against violating of “standards” were clearly attempts to stifle free expression guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution.

The Asian Journalists Association (AJA) joins the National Press Club and the Philippine Press Institute in calling upon the authorities to stop intimidating journalists and the media organizations.

We urge President Gloria Arroyo Macapagal to respect the professional right and duty of our fellows journalist to report political events without fear or favour.

In declaring our solidarity with our fellow media practitioners in the Philippines, we are confident that they would stay the course in defence of their rights and continue to play their part in upholding the nation’s democracy and freedom as enshrined in the Constitution.

Invasion of the Sanctity of the Press -- INSI

The International News Safety Institute (INSI)-Southeast Asia Office views with alarm and dismay the government's continuing harassment of media organizations and journalists despite the lifting of the state of national emergency last March 3.

INSI Regional Director Red Batario said, "The recent attempts of the police to obtain warrants to search the premises of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), the closure of the award-winning radio program Ngayon na Bayan aired over dzRJ, and the subpoena served on television station ABC 5 are chilling manifestations of the state's abridgement of the fundamental right of the press to freely report."

On March 13, sound engineer Jonathan Tiongco, accompanied by three policemen, asked Quezon City Judge Alan Balot to issue a warrant to search PCIJ's office, apparently in connection with a charge of inciting to sedition. Judge Balot denied Tiongco's request. This isthe second time his request for a search warrant was denied. According to the PCIJ, an earlier application on March 10 was turned down by another Quezon City judge.

Ngayon na Bayan, recipient of the 2002 Golden Dove Award for best public affairs program from the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP), was cancelled over dzRJ because of "personal political differences" with the station owner, Ramon Jacinto. The program, which used to air from Monday to Friday from 2:30 p.m. to 4 p.m., lost its block time last February 24, hours after President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declared a state of national emergency.

Then National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Acting Director Nestor Mantaring asked ABC 5's Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President Regalado Galura to submit a videotape in which Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim announced his withdrawal of support from the Arroyogovernment.

INSI calls on the Arroyo administration to stop these attempts to silent the press and uphold freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.

The International News Safety Institute (INSI) in Brussels, Belgium, a global network dedicated to the safety of journalists and media staff and committed to fighting the persecution of journalists everywhere.

The Institute is a coalition of media organizations, press freedom groups, unions and humanitarian campaigners working to create a culture of safety in media in all corners of the world.

Invasion of the Sanctity of the Press -- CCJD

The Center for Community Journalism and Development (CCJD) is alarmed by the government's continuing harassment of media organizations and journalists despite the lifting of the state of national emergency last March 3.

The recent attempts of the police to obtain warrants to search the premises of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), the closure of the award-winning radio program Ngayon na Bayan aired over dzRJ, and the National Bureau of Investigation's request to television station ABC 5 to turn over a video tape are chilling manifestations of the state's abridgement of the fundamental right of the press to freely report.

On March 13, sound engineer Jonathan Tiongco, accompanied by three policemen, asked Quezon City Judge Alan Balot to issue a warrant to search the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism's (PCIJ) office, apparently in connection with an inciting to sedition charge Tiongco filed against the media organization.

Tiongco was presented last year to the media by former Environment Secretary and now Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor, apparently to discredit the "Hello Garci" tapes—the recordings that suggested Ms. Arroyo cheated in the 2004 presidential elections.

Judge Balot denied Tiongco's request, the second time he did so. PCIJ said Tiongco's earlier application on March 10 was turned down by another Quezon City judge.

The radio program Ngayon na Bayan aired over DZRJ and recipient of the KBP 2002 Golden Dove Award for best public affairs program was taken off the air hours after President Arroyo issued Proclamation 1017. The police presented last March 13 a hooded witness who claimed that Kodao Productions Inc., producers of the radio program, was a propaganda arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines.

Reports received by the CCJD also showed that ABC 5 Television is being pressed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to submit video footage purportedly showing an Army Scout Rangers general announcing his withdrawal of support from the Arroyo government.

The CCJD condemns in the strongest terms these brazen attempts to harass, intimidate and suppress the media. It joins voices calling for the Arroyo administration to uphold the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and to observe the guarantees provided by international human rights instruments.

The continuing harassment of the media has very serious implications for the citizens' right to know and for the survival of democracy itself.

The Center for Community Journalism and Development is a non-government, non-profit media organization working with journalists, citizens and institutions for social change. It is also the Southeast Asia office of the International News Safety Institute (INSI) based in Brussels, Belgium.

We will not be cowed! -- Article 3 Alliance

It is all too clear that the Arroyo administration's main target are the media and the People's Right to Know, as much as, maybe even more so, than the sundry "destabilizers" from the Left, Right and all corners of the political spectrum.

It is no coincidence that applications for a search warrant have been filed and sedition charges are being poised against the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism even as the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines reported receiving a tip Monday evening from colleagues that the Armed Forces of the Philippines was planning to raid its national office in Quezon City.

Nor is it a coincidence that Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor warned of government's intention to charge "certain media personalities" with sedition.

It is likewise no coincidence that the award-winning program Ngayon na Bayan of Kodao Productions was unceremoniously and arbitrarily "suspended until further notice" by dzRJ, owned by Arroyo ally Ramon Jacinto, just hours after the President's declaration of a state of national emergency and later tagged as a "propaganda arm" of the Communist Party of thePhilippinesby the shadowy Jaime Fuentes, the government's putative star witness againstthe Left-Right coup plotters.

Before these, of course, were the raid on The Daily Tribune and the subsequent filing of sedition charges against publisher Ninez Cacho Olivares and two of the papers' columnists, the deployment of troops to major broadcast networks during the state of emergency, the continued monitoring of media output for "seditious" content, the threats by the Armed Forces tofile charges against the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

In Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's Philippines, incidents like these have increasingly become all in a day's work for the media, along with the growing list of journalists' murders, the most under any administration.

Punctuating this is the still unsolved abduction last March 3 of Aurora broadcaster Joey Estriber by armed men we strongly suspect to be military agents and the acquittal three days later in General Santos City of Ephraim Englis, prime suspect in the June 2004 murder of Ely Binoya.

Whenever beleaguered governments turn to tyranny to cling to power, the first target has always been the Press, believing that control of the free flow of information means control of the Truth. But, as our experience with dictatorship has proven, nothing can truly contain the Truth.

And this time, armed with the lessons of recent history, the Philippine media will no longer be cowed.

Indeed, the administration's worst threats, far from creating the chilling effect it no doubt intended, have only united the media and strengthened our resolve to resist any and all attempts to prevent us from the free exercise of our profession.

In Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's Philippines, such threats and attempts have become not brands of shame but badges of honor.

We harbor no doubts about the resolve of our colleagues in the PCIJ, NUJP, Kodao, Daily Tribune, Inquirer and all other threatened and targeted media outfits and organizations to stand firm against this administration's attempts to clamp down on a free Press.

To them, Article 3, the alliance of Negros journalists asserting Press Freedom and the People's Right to Know, extends our fraternal support as we call on our colleagues nationwide to remain steadfast in the defense of our rights and liberties against all efforts to force us into silence.

To the audiences we serve, we renew our commitment to providing them with the timely, accurate and relevant information they require and deserve.

It was a good thing that my previous post about the planned search on the premises of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) did not happen. According to NUJP's May Rodriguez, some NUJP members stayed until 11 pm in their office last night, anticipating the arrival of military men. But the soldiers did not come. And it was supposedly a raid, not just a search, May clarified.

I think that now is not the time to relax for the press and everyone. The mere fact that these attemps to muzzle the press exist -- the fact that The Daily Tribune was raided (regardless if it is an irresponsible and biased paper), the fact that an award-winning radio program Ngayon na, Bayan was sacked because the radio's producers had "personal political differences" with the station owner Ramon Jacinto (who is the former brother-in-law of First Gentleman Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo), the fact that a critical TV public affairs program Diyos at Bayan was cancelled in QTV-11, the fact that you hear your justice secretary warning ABS-CBN that the administration is monitoring the network's coverage of the Marine standoff, the fact that government officials are threatening the press not following the "standards set by the government -- there is no time perfect than this to fight back against the oppressors of press freedom.

Last night, in their blog, PCIJ's Sheila Coronel talked about the curious circumstances surrounding the search warrant on PCIJ.

Although the QC police have twice asked the courts for a warrant to search the PCIJ office, court officials are denying such applications were made. Neither is there a paper trail to show that the first application made last Friday had been denied.

PCIJ lawyer Sandra Marie Coronel told a Senate inquiry today that Branch 76 of the QC-RTC has denied there were such proceedings. Atty. Coronel was at the QC-RTC following up another case yesterday when she saw elements of the QC police with sound engineer and police asset Jonathan Tiongco applying for the search warrant against PCIJ. She returned to the court today to get copies of the warrant, only to be told there was no such thing.

“Despite the fact that I personally saw the policemen and Mr. Tiongco undergo proceedings on their application for a search warrant, I confirmed today that the statement of the court is that there was never any application. They now claim that there was no application whatsoever for any search warrant against Sheila Coronel and the PCIJ,” Atty. Coronel said at a Senate hearing this afternoon.

What is as bizarre, said Atty. Coronel, was that there was also no record of a warrant having been applied for and denied last Friday, when an application was first made by the QC police. “I likewise checked insofar as the application for a search warrant that was confirmed by a police informant to have been made and denied last Friday and there is likewise no record of any such application,” Coronel said.

Reporters of the television network GMA-7 arrived just a few minutes ago, saying their desk received information that the nujp office will be raided tonight, without warrant, by AFP (take note, AFP, not the police).

If a major network finds the report credible enough to send a crew, then we of course should take it seriously and take necessary precautions. I have already notified the Free Legal Assistance Group and the Counsels for Defense of Liberty, the eliptical beat reporters, and other colleagues in media.

If true, then it could only be intended to harass us because really, I don't know what they would want to see or get from our office.

GMA-7's source could be giving a well-meaning warning or was a tool or part of a deliberate effort to harass us, perhaps to see how we would react. (And we have always known it could come to this.)

Meanwhile, I am sipping a cold can of soda. Hopefully, it won't be my last.

Now comes this report from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), which I am posting in full below. You can also access this report in the PCIJ blog. Earlier, I got the tip that PCIJ was going to be searched, along with two other hard-hitting publications.

LATE this afternoon, three members of the Central Police District, accompanied by sound engineer Jonathan Tiongco, asked a Quezon City judge to issue a warrant that will allow the police to search the office of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), apparently in connection with a charge of inciting to sedition.

The PCIJ received confirmation of the application from well-placed sources in the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Quezon City Police. Court and police sources say that an earlier application for a search warrant was turned down last Friday by another Quezon City judge. This apparently prompted the police and Tiongco to apply today for a search warrant with another judge, Alan Balot of RTC Branch 76.

Alerted by the PCIJ, journalists from various media organizations waited outside Balot’s office while the hearing for the search warrant, which began at about 4:30 p.m., lasted past office closing hours this afternoon. The judge emerged from his office at about 5:30 p.m, but refused to talk to reporters. Interviewed by GMA-7 reporter Sandra Aguinaldo, Tiongco only said that the hearing had been cancelled. The clerk of court, meanwhile, told Aguinaldo that the there was no hearing, only an application for a search warrant.

The PCIJ and other journalists have been unable to confirm whether the judge granted the request for a warrant. But some court sources say that the presence of journalists prevented the warrant’s issuance today.

Friday, March 10, 2006

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines released a primer today for reporters and others who want to understand the petition in a minute or two. The primer, entitled Primer on the PRESS FREEDOM petition, explains what the petition is all about, as well as its significance and what it wants to achieve. The primer also has the complete list of the media organizations and journalists that signed the petition.

For media organizations or individual journalists that want to support the petition, they can sing it before Wednesday, March 15. They can download a copy of the petition from the NUJP website, and if they are in agreement with it, add their signatures and submit or mail 15 notarized original copies to either the offices of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, the Philippine Press Institute, or NUJP.

Institutions as well as individuals can sign. Institutions will be required to submit notarized board resolutions and secretary’s certificates. Individuals will be required to submit identification."

If you support and uphold press freedom in the country, do join and sign the petition.

Primer on the PRESS FREEDOM petitionPrepared by the National Union of Journalists of the PhilippinesMarch 10, 2006

What is the petition?

On March 8, 2006, 36 print and broadcast journalists and nine media groups led by the Philippine Press Institute (PPI), the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) and the News and Current Affairs division of network giant ABS-CBN, asked the Court of Appeals (CA) to prohibit executive-branch officials from restraining media reporting and intimidating journalists.

Why is this petition significant?

This is the first time since martial law, and maybe ever, that such a broad range of media organizations and journalists in the Philippines have banded in unity to file a petition in court, questioning media censorship and seeking such relief from the courts.

What does the petition say?

The journalist petitioners said that certain officials of the executive branch, in implementing Presidential Proclamation 1017 and General Order Number 5, and even after the state of national emergency is supposed to have been lifted, acted beyond their authority, gravely abused their discretion, and violated free-press guarantees in the Bill of Rights by imposing content-based prior restraints on the press.

What does the petition ask from the courts?

It asked for two things.

First, it wants the courts to prohibit Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales, PNP Director Arturo Lomibao and National Telecommunications Commission chair Ronald Oliver Solis, and their officers and agents, from censoring publications, or preventing or prohibiting the broadcast of news and commentaries based on content.

The petitioners want the court to prohibit the same persons or their representatives from issuing, or enforcing any issuances or guidelines that infringe on the freedom of the press and expression, or from intimidating the press, publicly or otherwise, with administrative sanctions or criminal prosecution, to stop the media from airing materials that the government judges to be “rebellious”, “seditious”, or “subversive”.

Second, the petitioners also want the courts to annul certain NTC issuances that prohibit the broadcast media from airing news and commentary that is “subversive”, “tends” to incite to treason, rebellion or sedition, or which constitute "rebellious/terrorist propaganda, comments, information, interviews and other similar or related materials."

Specifically, the petitioners seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction.

Why do the petitioners think their move justified?

1. The petition cited the press-freedom guarantees in the Constitution (Article III, Section 4), which provide that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, expression or of the press. It cited landmark cases and precedents that establish press freedom as standing on higher ground than economic freedoms. Settled jurisprudence saying the need for prior restraint on the media has to be rigorously proved was also cited.

2. The petition argued that the government officials cited above had no lawful authority to censor the media, and that even their public threats and warnings were also unlawful and invalid.

3. The petition specifically questioned the NTC circulars as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction, and in violation of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

4. Finally, the petitioners argued that they saw no other remedy in the ordinary course of the law but to file the petition.

Which court is handling the petition?

It was raffled to the 9th Division of the Court of Appeals, with case number 93529.and titled Philippine Press Institute et al versus Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita et al, for Certiorari, Prohibition, Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.

Who were signatories to the petition?

Group/Corporate petitioners: Philippine Press Institute (PPI), National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), Newsbreak, Probe Productions, Center for Community Journalism and Development (CCJD), UP College of Mass Communications and ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs Group

What can media organizations or individual journalists do if they want to support this petition?

They can add their own signatures before Wednesday, March 15. They can download a copy of the petition from the NUJP website, and if they are in agreement with it, add their signatures and submit or mail 15 notarized original copies to either the offices of the Philippine Press Institute, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, or the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, whose addresses can be found at the end of this primer.

Institutions as well as individuals can sign. Institutions will be required to submit notarized board resolutions and secretary’s certificates. Individuals will be required to submit identification.

Media organizations can also closely monitor the developments of this initiative for coverage. For updates, they can send reporters regularly to the petitioner organizations or individuals, or to the offices of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), whose address can also be found at the end of this primer.

The petition raised the arguments well as to why the current efforts of the government to stifle the press in the country should stop now and should never happen again. I urge you guys to read the 41-paged petition in full (which you can download from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism blog) . But if you want an executive summary of the petition to have a quick grasp of what it is all about, I'm pasting it below.

The decision to file a petition was arrived at after two meetings between FLAG and media practitioners; the contents of the petition were fully discussed with media practitioners; substantial changes, were, however, made to ensure that the petition addresses concerns of both print and broadcast media.

A. Objectives

a. To declare that the Executive Department, represented by the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Justice, the Director General of the Philippine National Police, the Chairman of the National Telecommunications Commission and their officers, agents or other persons acting under their authority or supervision, have no lawful power, authority or jurisdiction to prohibit the publication or airing of news and commentary based upon its contents.

i. Only a court, with its accompanying due process safeguards, may impose content-based prior restraints, when the grounds therefore are duly proved.

b. To prohibit the Executive Secretary, the PNP, the DOJ, and the NTC from imposing any form of content-based prior restraint on the press, be it formal or informal, direct or in the form of disguised or thinly veiled threats of administrative sanction or criminal prosecution.

i. The threat of official intervention—in the form of administrative sanction or criminal prosecution—is just as damaging to a free press as the fact of it.

c. To annul and set aside the issuances of the NTC that prohibit the press from airing or broadcasting news and commentary that, in the NTC's sole and unfettered discretion, are "subversive," which "tend" to propose or incite sedition or rebellion, or which constitute "rebellious/terrorist propaganda, comments, information, interviews and other similar or related materials."

i. NTC does not have any lawful power, authority or jurisdiction to prohibit these, much less judge what is subversive (when the crime of subversion has long been repealed), what merely "tends" to propose or incite sedition or rebellion (whatever that means to the NTC), and what constitutes "rebellious/terrorist propaganda, comments and the like (whatever that means to the NTC).

d. The dangers of un-reviewable administrative actions that impose prior restraints on the press are as ancient as dictators. We seek the intervention of the Court to stop the use of the strong arm of the law to exclude speech protected by the Constitution.

B. Petition is not hinged on declaration of state of national emergency; hence its “lifting” does not in any way affect the nature and objectives of the petition.

Last March 8, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) joined other media groups and some of the most prominent print and broadcast journalists in the Philippines in filing a petition before the Court of Appeals restraining executive officials from muzzling the media. (A small note: I work for CMFR and serves as the assistant editor for Philippine Journalism Review Reports or PJR Reports, CMFR's flagship media-monitoring publication.)

The petitioners asked the Court of Appeals to prohibit the respondents from "imposing any form of content-based prior restraint on the press, be it formal or informal, direct or in the form of disguised or thinly veiled threats of administrative sanction or criminal prosecution." The petition stressed that "only a court, with its accompanying due process safeguards, may impose content-based prior restraints, when the grounds therefor are duly proved."

Among the journalists who also signed the petition are Chit Estella, editor of the PJR Reports; Sheila Coronel of PCIJ; Maria Ressa, Vice-President for News and Current Affairs of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Network; Jessica Soho, Vice President for News and News Director of GMA-7; Tina Monzon-Palma of ABS-CBN News Channel (who is also a CMFR board member); Marites Vitug of Newsbreak, Ed Lingao, Vice President for Operations of ABC-5; Ricky Carandang of ANC and Arnold Clavio of GMA-7 and dzBB.

In a press conference at Newsdesk today, the petitioners released a statement to the media.

Journalists file petition against government efforts to stifle media

For the first time since martial law, a broad range of media organizations and journalists have banded together to file a petition in court, questioning government efforts to restrain media reporting and intimidate journalists.

In a petition filed on March 8, 36 print and broadcast journalists and nine media groups led by the Philippine Press Institute (PPI), the national organization of newspaper publishers, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines and the News and Current Affairs division of network giant ABS-CBN, asked the Court of Appeals to prohibit executive-branch officials from censoring the media.

These officials, the petition said, acted beyond their authority and violated the free-press guarantee in the Bill of Rights by imposing content-based prior restraints on the press. The petitioners therefore asked the court for a temporary restraining order and an injunction that would stop these officials from imposing or threatening to impose such restraints.

In the petition, the media groups asserted that “only a court, with its accompanying due process safeguards, may impose content-based prior restraints.” They specifically cited Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, the heads of the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) for attempts to stop, ban or censor the publication or airing of speech that allegedly incites or tends to incite to sedition.

The media groups also asked the court to prohibit the heads of these four state agencies and other persons acting under their authority from imposing any prior restraint on media content, whether formal or informal or “in the form of disguised or thinly veiled threats of administrative sanction or criminal prosecution.”

While Philippine journalists have defied the restraints, “the threat of official intervention – in the form of administrative sanction or criminal prosecution – is just as damaging to a free press as the fact of it,” the media petition said.

The petition cited the warnings to the media made by, among others, PNP Chief Arturo Lomibao, who said in a press forum on Feb. 25 that the police may take over newspapers “if they do not follow the standards and the standards are if they will contribute to instability in government.”

More specifically, the media practitioners asked the court to annul NTC circulars that prohibit the broadcast media from airing news and commentary that is “subversive” “tends” to incite to treason, rebellion, or sedition, or which constitute “rebellious/terrorist propaganda, comments, information, interviews and other similar or related materials.”

“The NTC does not have any lawful power, authority or jurisdiction to prohibit these things, much less to judge what is subversive (when the crime of subversion has long been repealed), what merely ‘tends’ to propose or incite sedition or rebellion (whatever that means to the NTC), and what constitutes ‘rebellious/terrorist propaganda, comments and the like (whatever that means to the NTC)’,” the petition said.

The petitioners include the top anchors and news managers of erstwhile network rivals, ABS-CBN and GMA-7, among them, Maria Ressa, Jessica Soho, Arnold Clavio, Ricky Carandang, and Pia Hontiveros.

The other media groups that signed the petition include the multi-awarded Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Newsbreak magazine, and the independent TV company, Probe Productions. The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility and the Center for Community Journalism and Development, media NGOs engaged in media development work, signed as well. So did the College of Mass Communication of the University of the Philippines.

“The dangers of unreviewable administrative sanctions imposing prior restraints on the press are as ancient as dictators, the petition said. “We seek the intervention of this Honorable Court to stop the use of the strong arm of the law to exclude speech protected by the Constitution.”

Thursday, March 09, 2006

What's next, Palace officials calling media organizations to fire journalists not following "standards set by the government"?

A top government official called up an ABS-CBN executive at the height of the Marines standoff at Fort Bonifacio on February 26, asking that the network not to cover the ongoing news event, ABS-CBN News chief Maria Ressa told a Senate inquiry on today.

Ressa told the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights that the official talked briefly to the executive, telling him not to air the event. She said ABS-CBN turned down the request of the Palace official.

I suddenly remembered what Manolo Quezon said in a press conference two days after Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation 1017 (which was lifted on March 3). "The Achilles heel of media are the owners of publications, TV, and radio stations. So, you have to apply pressure on your owners not to fold. The first thing the Palace does is to talk to the owners," Manolo said.

Was Gabby (the nickname of ABS-CBN's president Eugenio Gabriel Lopez III) the "executive" Maria was talking about? We don't know yet. But the fact that someone from the administration called the network requesting it to stop its coverage on an otherwise legitimate news item is clearly an attempt to stifle media to follow "government standards." I personally watched ANC's coverage, and from what I saw, the coverage was fair and balanced. Sometimes, I even think that ANC is trying too hard to get the government's side on an issue, lest be accused again of having an anti-Arroyo bias. Well, that was just my impression sometimes.

Going back to the issue, I can't stop laughing about how certain officials in Malacañang became journalists overnight, threatening the press and giving unsolicited advice on what to cover or not. If the Palace continues this way, they should probably begin teaching journalism courses as a sideline. With Pres. Arroyo as the dean.

Friday, March 03, 2006

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo lifted a week-old state of emergency on Friday, after her security advisers assured her that the threat of a coup has eased.

Shortly before Arroyo made the annnouncement in a nationally televised address, two explosions hit near a police station and a shopping complex in a Manila suburb, but police said no one was hurt.

"I am happy to report that we have dismantled the sabotage efforts," Arroyo said. "I strongly believe that law and order has returned."

Arroyo declared the emergency last Friday to quash a coup plot allegedly involving disgruntled soldiers, communist rebels and civilian backers. On Thursday, the defense, justice and police chiefs said they would recommend lifting the decree because the situation was normalizing.

Check out similar reports from Inq7 and ABS-CBN News. Pres. Arroyo made the announcement at around 11:30 this morning.

In a later interview in ANC, former Pres. Fidel V. Ramos said he was "gratified" for lifting the state of emergency.

My reaction? Well, it's good to know that the controversial declaration made by Arroyo last week was lifted. But I wonder: How much "chilling" effect did we get from that declaration, even though it has been lifted today? I can't forget the recent incidents on the media following Arroyo's PP 1017 -- the Tribuneraid, the hacking of the website of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, and the cancellation of Kata Innocencio's public affairs show Diyos at Bayan (which I only learned upon watching the Probe last night).

True, the state of national emergency has been lifted, but how can we be sure that there will be no more threats to or attacks against media organizations and journalists here in the country?

While we ponder about it, here is a statement from ABC 5 on the media situation in the country. Got this from ABC 5 reporter Jove Francisco in his blog post.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Someone commented in the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility blog:

"Please can someone post the so-called Telecommunications media guidelines that we are supposed to be against? Everybody is talking about how they violate media freedom but if we don't know what they are, we cannot really analyse them and see how it relates to the internationally set standards on freedom of expression. It's like condemning Proc. 1017 and GO 5 without having read them."

Here is a post from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) blog reporting about the reissuance of National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) circulars prohibiting broadcast stations from airing material that "tends to incite to sedition, rebellion or treason and uses language that is 'indecent or immoral.'"

The main problem of these circulars is: How do you define which materials incite people to rebel or which are seditious or not? How should media follow these guidelines while still keeping in mind the values of the profession, such as objectivity, balace, fairness, accuracy, among others? How do you cover, for example, legitimate news sources such as personalities and groups calling for the ouster of Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo?

Here is the NTC's Memorandum Circular No. 01-01-01, which was issued on Jan. 2001 and reissued after the government issued Presidential Proclamation no. 1017:

WHEREAS, the National Telecommunications Commission has received sufficient and reliable information form the Office of the Press Secretary of suspicious elements who are out to create a destabilization move against the duly constituted government;

WHEREAS, radio broadcasting and television station are duty bound to provide adequate public service which include among others, airing of fair and balanced reporting;

WHEREAS, in the interest of justice and fair play and all laws in connection therewith such as radio broadcasting and television stations; franchises and authorities, Memorandum Circular No. 11-12-85 is hereby reiterated as follows:

"5" All radio broadcasting and television stations shall provide adequate public service time; shall conform to the ethics of honest enterprise; and shall not use its stations for the broadcasting and/or telecasting of obscene or indecent language, speech, play, act or scene, or for the dissemination of false information or willful misrepresentation, or to the detriment of the public health or to incite, encourage or assist in subversive or treasonable acts.

"6" All radio broadcasting and television stations shall, during any broadcast or telecast, cut off from the air the speech, play, act or scene or other matter being broadcast and/or telecast, if the tendency thereof is to propose and/or incite treason, rebellion or treason, or language used therein or the theme thereof is indecent or immoral.

In addition, the airing of rebellious/terrorist propaganda, comments, interviews, information and other similar and/or related materials shall be prohibited. (highlighted text Bryanton Post's)

All broadcast media entities, radio or television must conform with the abovementioned guidelines.

In view of the prevailing state of affairs affecting our country and in order not to unduly alarm the public, the KBP leadership enjoins its members to strictly observe the KBP Television and Radio Codes that require balanced programming and presentation of news and public affairs. Coverage of events should be accurate, informative, adequate and must present all sides. The “right to respond” must be observed at all times.

Attention is called to the provision of the KBP Television and Radio Codes that states that rallies and demonstrations are legitimate news events and may be covered at the discretion of the station. However, care must be exercised that the coverage does not provide false information that leads to incite the public to rebellion.

In the coverage of troop movements, members are reminded that there are national security implications and lives are at stake. Any coverage of this nature should NOT identify the location of the troops or provide/show identifiable landmarks, give troop estimates, identity of troop personnel and destination or direction of troops.

In a dialogue with the NTC Commissioners, the KBP was assured that the NTC respects the freedom of the press and of free speech and expression protected by the Constitution. Further, the NTC Commissioners stated that in the enforcement of the laws, rules and regulations affecting broadcast, due process will always be observed in tandem with the self-regulatory mechanisms of the KBP. The Commission further committed to a continuous dialogue with the KBP on matters affecting the industry.

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

In order for us to know and understand our basic rights in these troubled times of our democracy, the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) has updated its primer, "Know Your Rights!" to help the public in times like this.

The primer talks about the powers the President may employ under an emergency situation, the nature of lawful and unlawful arrests, and some guidelines on what one should do once he or gets arrested, among other things.

The NUJP expresses concern over the shutting down of its website today, March 1. The site could not be accessed practically the whole day Wednesday after somebody hacked into its database server and tried to delete or change files.

According to the NUJP's web host, the hacker or hackers also illegally made too many connections to the database that prevented other users or readers from accessing the site. (The site was up by late afternoon Wednesday.)

The website has been publishing statements, manifestos and updates condemning the latest crackdown by the government on the Philippine press. It also serves as a database of the numerous attacks and murders of journalists in the Philippines. Many journalists and citizens from around the world refer to the site for materials on press freedom in thePhilippines.

In view of the attempts by the Arroyo administration to muzzle or intimidate the press through Proclamation 1017, which the NUJP deems inimical to press freedom, to civil liberties and to the public interest, preventing us from publishing our website is distressing, to say the least. This is no different from forcibly closing down a publication.

The government must stop trying to intimidate journalists. We urge our colleagues in the press to defy Proclamation 1017 and resist the efforts by this government to violate our basic freedoms.

Here is the statement from Samahang Plaridel, which is composed of senior journalists, on what is happening today:

It’s a travesty on our history that we have to argue the inviolability of the freedom of speech and expression, familiarly known as the Freedom of the Press, in a free, democratic, and open society.

In the 19th century, Jose Rizal, Marcelo del Pilar (Plaridel). Graciano Lopez Jaena, and other illustrious Filipinos exiled themselves, formed the Propaganda Movement, published La Solidarida, fought as writers, forbears of journalists, for Filipino freedom. Inherent in the struggle is the freedom of the press.

In the 12 years of martial rule, Filipino journalists along with the freedom-fighters wrote, again in exile, while those who remained in the country did so clandestinely – as virtual exiles.

Today, Proclamation 1017 patently exiles journalists through censorship and in doing so banishes in exile the bedrock liberty of a democratic society.

The government’s imposition of "standards", intimidating sectors in media into asking for "guidelines" from government, is without precedent in a democracy. It is not even sanctioned by our Constitution, which provides that even under Martial Law, civil liberties will be respected.

History clearly shows that civil liberties are irreparably impaired without press freedom.

History shows that a free and independent press is a conservative rather than a disruptive force of a free society. The press does not subvert but instead promotes democracy, that by freely reporting on events and freely and vigorously commenting on them, a free people is able to protect itself from the inevitable abuse of power. A free press is the people’s defense against deception, intimidation, and subjugation from forces inimical to their welfare.

Only in despotic regimes is a free press considered a subversive force, for it is subversive of the arbitrary exercise of power, subversive of conditions that "exalts the few over the degradation of the many," subversive of the despotism of armed duplicity.

We in PLARIDEL need no arguments to justify the freedom of the press. We find it degrading o have to argue for a sacrosanct freedom that is the shining mark of civil society and the one guarantor of every man’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A government, nay, a free society that cannot see this has already enslaved itself.

We are informed by the PNP that they are reading all the newspapers and are "evaluating" what we are writing, as if policemen have brains enough to understand the minds of reporters, editors, photographers, cartoonists and columnists. As for the radio and television stations, the one doing the "evaluating" is the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC).

What will befall the newspaper or the radio or television station were we to fail the "evaluation"? The threat is that the newspaper or broadcast station could be closed down. Thus, even the most principled journalist has a Damocles sword hanging over him. One may not care one whit what happens to himself as a person as long as he can continue to be a principled journalist.

There are, however, so many others – jobs and persons- to consider. If a media outlet is closed down – no matter that this is in contravention of all that is sacred to us, including our Constitution – a lot of people who work as technicians, lay-out artists, circulation personnel, typesetters, transmitter personnel, cameramen and others automatically lose their livelihood.

Thus, there is pressure on journalists – whether in print or broadcast – to toe the line, to make an effort to pass the "evaluating" by lesser persons who are cretins when compared to those that they would "evaluate."

While we took our chances during martial law, even to violating presidential decrees almost on a daily basis, there seems no point in taking chances today. After all, under Marcos, martial law was a serious matter, taken seriously by all of us.

Today, we all know that all the State of Emergency is out to achieve is to stop the truth – on already so many subjects – from fully revealing itself. It is a lost battle, of course, since it is in the nature of truth that it will surely reveal itself. She can, perhaps, delay this until 2010 and perhaps beyond but truth will out, eventually if not sooner.

A State of Emergency has been declared when the only emergency is that caused by the continuing rule of incompetents who have no concept of how to run a bureaucracy in a democratic environment. Thus, they become despots, which is, sadly, all that they can hope to be. And, they will not even be good even at being despots.

Edmund Burke is quoted to have said: "Three Estates in Parliament; but in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth estate more important far than they all".

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.

About the Writer

Hector Bryant L. Macale works for the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) as senior staffwriter. He is the assistant editor of Philippine Journalism Review Reports (PJR Reports), the flagship media-monitoring publication of CMFR. PJR Reports is the first and only publication of its kind in the country and has served as a model for various press communities around Asia.